|
|
Zeitler-Feicht, M. H., Streit, S., & Dempfle, L. (2010). Automatic feeding systems for horses in group housing systems with regard to animal welfare. Part 1: Feeding stalls versus automatic feeding systems. Tierärztl Prax, 38(G), 363–370.
Abstract: Gegenstand und Ziel: Überprüfung der Tiergerechtheit von Abrufstationen
für Kraftfutter und Heu in der Gruppenhaltung von Pferden anhand
ethologischer und physiologischer Parameter im Vergleich zu konventionellen
Fressständen. Material und Methoden: Die Verhaltensbeobachtungen
fanden in 11 bzw. 10 Offenlaufställen mit Abrufstationen
bzw. Fressständen statt. 270 Pferde wurden individuell unterschieden.
Untersuchungsparameter waren: Drohverhalten mit und ohne Verletzungsrisiko,
Meideverhalten, Verdrängung aus dem Fressstand sowie
Herzfrequenz und Integumentverletzungen. In jedem Betrieb erfolgten
kontinuierliche Direktbeobachtungen für je einen 24-Stunden-Tag (Tortenstückverfahren).
Ergebnisse: Im Wartebereich der Abrufautomaten
traten signifikant mehr Drohgesten ohne bzw. mit Verletzungsgefahr je
Pferd und Tag (8,6 bzw. 3,0) auf als im Wartebereich der Fressstände
(3,4 bzw. 0,9). Demgegenüber konnten die Pferde in Abrufstationen
(1,4 Drohgesten je Pferd und Tag) ungestörter fressen als in Fressständen
(3,2 Drohgesten je Pferd und Tag). Insgesamt betrachtet ergab sich
jedoch bei beiden Fütterungssystemen eine geringe Anzahl an sozionegativen
Interaktionen im Bereich der Futtereinrichtungen. Die Herzfrequenz
lag im Warteareal im Durchschnitt im physiologischen Bereich
(44,59 ± 11,73 Schläge/min). Integumentverletzungen im Zusammenhang
mit dem Fütterungssystem traten nicht auf. Der wichtigste Einflussfaktor
auf die Untersuchungskriterien war der Betrieb (Fläche, Konzeption,
Management). Schlussfolgerung: Unter dem Aspekt der Tiergerechtheit
hinsichtlich des Stress- und Verletzungsrisikos durch soziale
Interaktionen eignen sich bei ordnungsgemäßer Gruppenhaltung mit
fachgerechtem Management sowohl Fressstände als auch Abrufstationen
für Pferde im Offenlaufstall.
[Objective: A comparison with regard to animal welfare of feeding
stalls and automatic feeding systems for hay and concentrates in group
housing systems for horses using parameters of ethology and physiology.
Material and method: The observations of animal behaviour took
place in 10 stables with feeding stalls and in 11 stables with automatic
feeding systems. The field around the feeding systems was divided into
three areas with comparable dimensions (waiting area, exit area and
inside of the feeding system). 270 horses were individually observed.
Parameters of research comprised: threatening behaviour with and
without risk of injury, avoiding behaviour, ”chasing away from the feeding
place”, as well as heart rate and injuries of the integument. Every
group of horses was continuously observed for 24 hours. This observation
took place on four different days and comprised six sessions, each
of 4 hours. Results: In the waiting area of the automatic systems there
were significantly more threatening gestures with and without risk of
injuries for each horse and day (8.6 and 3.0, respectively) than in the
waiting area of the feeding stalls. In contrast, the horses could eat more
relaxed in the automatic systems (1.4 threatening gestures for each
horse and day) than in the feeding stalls (3.2 threatening gestures for
each horse and day). All together the number of negative interactions in
the feeding area of both feeding systems was relatively low. The heart
rate was within the physiological range (44,59 ± 11,73 beats/min) in
the waiting area. There were no injuries of the integument in correlation
with the feeding systems. The most important factor of the observation
criteria was the individual group housing system with its different dimension,
conception and management. Conclusion: Under the aspect
of animal welfare both feeding systems are suitable for horses with respect
to the risk of stress and injuries by social interactions and under
the condition of proper group housing with professional management.]
Keywords: Pferd, Fütterungseinrichtungen, soziale Interaktionen, Herzfrequenz, Verletzungsrisiko, Betriebseinfluss [Horse, feeding stations, social interactions, heart rate, risk of injury, individual farm management]
|
|
|
|
López-Bao, J. V., Sazatornil, V., Llaneza, L., & Rodríguez, A. (2013). Indirect Effects on Heathland Conservation and Wolf Persistence of Contradictory Policies that Threaten Traditional Free-Ranging Horse Husbandry. Conservation Letters, 6(6), 448–455.
Abstract: Conservation agencies within the European Union promote the restoration of traditional land uses as a cost-effective way to preserve biodiversity outside reserves. Although the European Union pursues the integration of the environment into strategic decision-making, it also dictates sectoral policies that may damage farmland biodiversity. We illustrate this point by outlining the socioeconomic factors that allow the persistence of traditional free-ranging horse husbandry in Galicia, northwestern Spain. Free-ranging Galician mountain ponies provide ecological and socioeconomic services including the prevention of forest fires, the maintenance of heathlands and wolves, and the attenuation of wolf-human conflicts. This traditional livestock system may have persisted because it entails negligible costs for farmers. Wolf predation upon Galician mountain ponies does not threaten farmer's economies and seems to be tolerated better than attacks to more valuable stock. Recently, European Union's regulations on animal welfare, carcass management, or meat production put new economic and administrative burdens on farmers, make free-ranging horse rearing economically unsustainable, and incentivize its abandonment. The aim of the European Union to integrate environmental policies may be successful to preserve farmland biodiversity only through careful anticipation of the side effects of apparently unrelated regulations on the fragile equilibrium that sustain traditional land uses.
|
|
|
|
López-Bao, J. V., Sazatornil, V., Llaneza, L., & Rodríguez, A. (2013). Indirect Effects on Heathland Conservation and Wolf Persistence of Contradictory Policies that Threaten Traditional Free-Ranging Horse Husbandry. Conservation Letters, 6(6), 448–455.
Abstract: Abstract Conservation agencies within the European Union promote the restoration of traditional land uses as a cost-effective way to preserve biodiversity outside reserves. Although the European Union pursues the integration of the environment into strategic decision-making, it also dictates sectoral policies that may damage farmland biodiversity. We illustrate this point by outlining the socioeconomic factors that allow the persistence of traditional free-ranging horse husbandry in Galicia, northwestern Spain. Free-ranging Galician mountain ponies provide ecological and socioeconomic services including the prevention of forest fires, the maintenance of heathlands and wolves, and the attenuation of wolf-human conflicts. This traditional livestock system may have persisted because it entails negligible costs for farmers. Wolf predation upon Galician mountain ponies does not threaten farmer's economies and seems to be tolerated better than attacks to more valuable stock. Recently, European Union's regulations on animal welfare, carcass management, or meat production put new economic and administrative burdens on farmers, make free-ranging horse rearing economically unsustainable, and incentivize its abandonment. The aim of the European Union to integrate environmental policies may be successful to preserve farmland biodiversity only through careful anticipation of the side effects of apparently unrelated regulations on the fragile equilibrium that sustain traditional land uses.
|
|
|
|
López-Bao, J. V., Sazatornil, V., Llaneza, L., & Rodríguez, A. (2013). Indirect Effects on Heathland Conservation and Wolf Persistence of Contradictory Policies that Threaten Traditional Free-Ranging Horse Husbandry. Conservation Letters, 6(6), 448–455.
Abstract: Abstract Conservation agencies within the European Union promote the restoration of traditional land uses as a cost-effective way to preserve biodiversity outside reserves. Although the European Union pursues the integration of the environment into strategic decision-making, it also dictates sectoral policies that may damage farmland biodiversity. We illustrate this point by outlining the socioeconomic factors that allow the persistence of traditional free-ranging horse husbandry in Galicia, northwestern Spain. Free-ranging Galician mountain ponies provide ecological and socioeconomic services including the prevention of forest fires, the maintenance of heathlands and wolves, and the attenuation of wolf-human conflicts. This traditional livestock system may have persisted because it entails negligible costs for farmers. Wolf predation upon Galician mountain ponies does not threaten farmer's economies and seems to be tolerated better than attacks to more valuable stock. Recently, European Union's regulations on animal welfare, carcass management, or meat production put new economic and administrative burdens on farmers, make free-ranging horse rearing economically unsustainable, and incentivize its abandonment. The aim of the European Union to integrate environmental policies may be successful to preserve farmland biodiversity only through careful anticipation of the side effects of apparently unrelated regulations on the fragile equilibrium that sustain traditional land uses.
|
|
|
|
Flauger, B., & Krueger, K. (2013). Aggressionslevel und Platzangebot bei Pferden (Equus caballus) [ Aggression level and enclosure size in horses (Equus caballus)]. Pferdeheilkunde, 29(4), 495–504.
Abstract: Viele Pferdebesitzer bevorzugen aus Angst vor aggressiven Interaktionen und Verletzungsgefahr der Tiere untereinander die Einzelhaltung, obwohl von Tierschutzorganisationen die Gruppenhaltung für Pferde empfohlen wird. In dieser Studie beobachteten wir während des alltäglichen Soziallebens als auch bei der Eingliederung von neuen Gruppenmitgliedern das Sozialverhalten, insbesondere das Aggressionsverhalten, von elf Gruppen domestizierter Pferde (Equus caballus) verschiedener Größe und Zusammensetzung. Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens hatten die Gruppe und der Paddock-Typ (Gras / kein Gras) keinen Einfluss auf die Verhaltensweisen, wohingegen die Paddockgröße unter 10000 m2 einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die submissiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) und einen nicht signifikanten Einfluss auf die aggressiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081) hatte. Allerdings verringerten sich sowohl die aggressiven als auch die submissiven Verhaltensweisen mit steigendem Platzangebot bis zu 10000 m2 (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=56; aggressive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.313, P = 0.019; submissive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.328, P = 0.014). Während den Eingliederungen reduzierten sich die Aggressionen pro Stunde mit der Vergrößerung des Platzangebotes (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034). Dies zeigte sich noch deutlicher, wenn Beobachtungen mit einem Platzangebot von über 10000 m2 ausgeschlos- sen wurden (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens näherte sich der Aggressionslevel der Nulllinie an, wenn das Platzangebot pro Pferd mehr als 331 m2 betrug. Deshalb empfehlen wir zur Reduzierung des Aggressionslevels und des Verletzungsrisikos von sozial gehaltenen Pferdegruppen ein Platzangebot von mindestens 331 m2 pro Pferd.
[Even though animal welfare organisations propose group housing for horse welfare, many owners stable horses individually for fear of aggressive interactions and injury risks. In the present study we observed social behaviour, and especially aggressiveness, in eleven domestic horse groups (Equus caballus) of different size and composition, in basic social situations and when new group members were introduced. During basic social situations, the group and the type of paddock (grass / no grass) had no effect on any of the behaviours, where- as the enclosure size below 10,000 m2 had a significant effect on submissive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) and an insignificant effect on aggressive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081). However, aggressive and submissive behaviour dimi- nished with the increase of enclosure sizes up to 10,000 m2 (Spearman rank correlation; n = 56; aggressive behaviour: r = -0.313, P=0.019; submissive behaviour: r=-0.328, P=0.014). During introductions, aggression levels per hour decreased with any increase of enclosure size (Spearman rank correlation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034) and even more when enclosure sizes above 10,000 m2 were excluded (Spearman rank correlation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). During basic social situations the aggression level approached zero when the space allowance was more than 331 m2 per horse. We therefore recommend keeping horse groups in an enclosure with at least 331 m2 per horse to reduce aggression and injuries.]
|
|
|
|
Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., Provost, M. L., & Cellar, A. C. (2010). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildl. Res., 37(8), 715–721.
Abstract: Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during 2005-2008. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., Trager, L., Farmer, K., & Byrne, R. (2022). Tool Use in Horses. Animals, 12(15), 1876.
Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.
|
|
